Kat around? you use Pampers or Boudreaux's?

I could only watch the first clip and now I must nip off and shoot myself in the head.

I listened to the first clip and, yeah, they didn't have any clue about the federal budget, but I kind of wish the guy asking the questions could ask those same questions to elected officials because I think the answers would be interesting.

Oh, and stupid 4th kid being born to a mother on welfare, he or she should be more responsible about their parent choices.

I always thought of it is stating our ideals rather than the reality.

I'm not sure it does set forth our ideals, except in the vaguest way. You have:

"one nation, indivisible" -- which meant a lot more in 1892 (with the shadow of the Civil War still present) than it does now.

"with liberty and justice for all" -- a phrase anyone can agree with, until you start to ask what "liberty" and "justice" mean.

And the interpolation of "under God" is, to say the least, controversial (as a number of people here have pointed out). And arguably completely out of place as an ideal in a country whose most basic law prohibits establishment of religion or limits on the free exercise of religion.

Maybe it's impossible to get any more specific. The issues of 1892 and the issues of 2010 are very different. And even where the broad category of issue remains, the context has changed a great deal.

Oh, and stupid 4th kid being born to a mother on welfare, he or she should be more responsible about their parent choices.

Did you notice how her next sentence was about "the people who really need welfare, like mothers with children"?

Did you notice how her next sentence was about "the people who really need welfare, like mothers with children"?

I'm sure they mean WIDOWS with children who would have stayed rich if their husbands hadn't tragically died, right? Because single mothers are obviously bad, and divorcees aren't much better. Clearly.

"one nation, indivisible" -- which meant a lot more in 1892 (with the shadow of the Civil War still present) than it does now.

I dunno - is Texas still threatening to secede because they're the Real Americans or something?

Everything I would have to say on pledge has been said.

Shir, your question on BDS: a book or movie not being sold in territories does affect royalties. Also in general the cultural part of the boycott is much more about moral pressure than economic. I think Israel is (in monetary terms) a larger customer for arts and literature and music than exporter. Probably a net exporter of technology though. (I know the former, the latter is a guess.) Weapons: Israel is a big exporter and importer, so not sure of net.

BDS globally really is costing Israel a little money. But in U.S. there is an important domestic component. For a long time any criticism of Israel no matter how mild was labeled anti-semitic and punished politically. J-Street as a 'respectable' Jewish U.S. peace group has helped as part of it. But it also sets up this weird paradox where there is more latitude for Jews than non-Jews to criticize Israel. BDS by setting up a movement where a large movement that includes a lot of non-Jews, than is not led by Jewish people takes action against the occupation and ends up not being punished for it moves the window of discourse to the point where Israel can be talked about in the U.S. just like any other country. Which is why we have things like the Israeli consulate involved in trying to get the local Olympia co-op to repeal its participation in BSD.

I'm sure they mean WIDOWS with children who would have stayed rich if their husbands hadn't tragically died, right? Because single mothers are obviously bad, and divorcees aren't much better. Clearly.

That was exactly it. Someone who has 4 kids (cheating the system!) vs someone "who's husband died or something" (totally deserves welfare!) I mean, a respectable widow wouldn't have 4 kids - that's a totally slutty number of kids to have!

I'm sure they mean WIDOWS with children who would have stayed rich if their husbands hadn't tragically died, right?

And of course then they got hit with the Death Tax.

I mean, a respectable widow wouldn't have 4 kids - that's a totally slutty number of kids to have!

Obviously.